Von NotHaus and basic economics

[Prof]

See Steviepoo's recent statement to the effect that anyone who would say that Galveston, Texas is commonly subject to hurricanes would be "looked at strangely." See thread in Ranting and Raving regarding LPC.

For those of you who do not know, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was American's greatest natural disaster killing over 6,000, and Galveston gets some hurricane problem about every 20 years and somewhat more frequently Galveston and Houston are asked to evacuate -- see Katrina, et al.

[Famspear]

I notice that SteveSy apparently went back and deleted some of his own comments, in an attempt to erase the humiliation he suffered at his own hands late last night (early this morning). I am at work and although I saved some of his work I don't know whether I saved the comments he made that humiliated him so.

At any rate, if it's not obvious, Steve ranted and raved at me because I pointed out his erroneous statement that neither the President nor the Congress could remove members of the Board of Governors of the FRS. I pointed out that the law itself allows the President to remove a Board member "for cause." I even provided a citation to the statute. He then copied and pasted the text of the statute itself into one of his own comments, hilighting a portion of one sentence in blue color. He called me an idiot, etc., claiming that the statute did not say that, and pointing specifically to the material he had highlighted in blue.

I then came back and told him something like: Hey, dummy read the rest of the sentence, the portion of the sentence after the part he had highlighted in blue. The rest of the sentence clearly states that the President has the power to remove a Board member ("for cause").

For once, Stevie admitted his error -- after having made a fool of himself by copying and pasting the very language he contended was not there, and after having excoriated me when I was right and he was wrong -- but his error admission was less than graceful.

I have seen this kind of behavior before with anti-authority people, especially tax protesters. They just have a very hard time breaking out of their emotional hyperventilation mode and just settling down and reading their own sources. I am dealing with a trouble maker in another forum right now who has so far refused to even admit that he is wrong after having been called on blatantly false material -- even though he himself has provided the link to the court opinion that exposes his nonsense.

A lot of these people simply go about things "bass ackwards." They generate this anti-authority, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-Federal Reserve System ideology or Weltanschauung, and then gather "data" to support the ideology. They just aren't very careful about what they read -- and they even take what they read and argue it says the opposite of what it really says. I am having a tussle right now with a clown over "Springer v. United States," a SCOTUS decision from the 1880s where the court ruled an 1864 tax statute to be constitutional. The 1864 statute clearly taxes income of all U.S. citizens or residents. Despite the fact that the Springer case does not even mention "government employees" or "people connected with the government," or even the occupation of the taxpayer (Mr. Springer was a practicing attorney, but that's not even mentioned in the Court's opinion), this clown continues to argue that the case is about an 1862 tax statute on income of "government employees," etc., rather than the 1864 statute on income of U.S. citizens and residents.

You can show them the blue sky right above them, and they just refuse to admit that it's there. These people are simply not well grounded in the concept of reality.

[The Observer]

What I *would* like is for you to shut up when you've been shown to be wrong, instead of trying to rationalize your ignorance/stupidity.

A rousing encore of "To Dream The Impossible Dream" would be apropos right about now.

[wserra]

You can show them the blue sky right above them, and they just refuse to admit that it's there. These people are simply not well grounded in the concept of reality.

As I wrote fifteen years ago on misc.taxes, the Hand of God could appear during Superbowl halftime and skywrite, "You all owe income tax", and they would just argue that the fringe on His sleeve means that His words are only valid over water.

[The Operative]

Those securities are held by private banks, the government can't just claim them as assets and not pay them, that would destroy the government credit rating right off the bat and the securities would be worthless.

Title 12 U.S.C. § 290 states "Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied."

As I said, the stock in a Federal Reserve bank confers no right of ownership beyond the par value of the stock.

[Cpt Banjo]

I am having a tussle right now with a clown over "Springer v. United States," a SCOTUS decision from the 1880s where the court ruled an 1864 tax statute to be constitutional. The 1864 statute clearly taxes income of all U.S. citizens or residents. Despite the fact that the Springer case does not even mention "government employees" or "people connected with the government," or even the occupation of the taxpayer (Mr. Springer was a practicing attorney, but that's not even mentioned in the Court's opinion), this clown continues to argue that the case is about an 1862 tax statute on income of "government employees," etc., rather than the 1864 statute on income of U.S. citizens and residents.

Springer's occupation had as much to do with the result in the case as the fact that his name began with the letter "S".

It's amazing how these cretins stick their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge facts that don't fit within their preconceived notions, such as the statement in the opinion that "It was the act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of March 3, 1865, that was in force when the tax was assessed."

[Famspear]

Cpt Banjo:

Springer's occupation had as much to do with the result in the case as the fact that his name began with the letter "S".

It's amazing how these cretins stick their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge facts that don't fit within their preconceived notions, such as the statement in the opinion that "It was the act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of March 3, 1865, that was in force when the tax was assessed."

Yes, and at least SteveSy finally admitted he was wrong -- after he realized that he himself had copied and pasted the very language from the statute that proved him to be wrong, but had failed to read the sentence carefully enough. Most of the time, these people absolutely refuse to admit defeat. What makes it fun for me is that this refusal to admit defeat is a factor in the underlying psychopathology for these people, in that they just go on and make the same kinds of mistakes again and again, never modifying their behavior. The defeats are not LEARNING experiences for them, so they end up humiliating themselves again and again. Which is pretty comical.

[SteveSy]

Those securities are held by private banks, the government can't just claim them as assets and not pay them, that would destroy the government credit rating right off the bat and the securities would be worthless.

Title 12 U.S.C. § 290 states "Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied."

As I said, the stock in a Federal Reserve bank confers no right of ownership beyond the par value of the stock.

The government can't just seize the stock, they have to pay for it.

See:
12 USC 287
12 USC 288

§ 290. Use of earnings transferred to Treasury

The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied.

I think you really need to think it over, the government is not going to be able to just take its securities back that provide the base for the entire backing system. It will have to pay those securities off. I suppose it could default on its obligation but then that would be economic suicide not to mention probably incite a revolution.

I agree it could dismantle the federal reserve, it would be very difficult but it could be done and then it could print and mange its own currency, though I would rather have the fed do it. If we were to dismantle the Fed it would have to be to go to a metal standard to prevent the government from being irresponsible with monetary policy.

[SteveSy]

I then came back and told him something like: Hey, dummy read the rest of the sentence, the portion of the sentence after the part he had highlighted in blue. The rest of the sentence clearly states that the President has the power to remove a Board member ("for cause").

For once, Stevie admitted his error -- after having made a fool of himself by copying and pasting the very language he contended was not there, and after having excoriated me when I was right and he was wrong -- but his error admission was less than graceful.

I have seen this kind of behavior before with anti-authority people, especially tax protesters. They just have a very hard time breaking out of their emotional hyperventilation mode and just settling down and reading their own sources. I am dealing with a trouble maker in another forum right now who has so far refused to even admit that he is wrong after having been called on blatantly false material -- even though he himself has provided the link to the court opinion that exposes his nonsense.

I've been here for several years and not once has anyone admitted to any mistake they have made even when it was obvious. So don't get on your high horse labeling tp's this way, your group has the same failure even more so at times. I've admitted my errors a few times here as much as I hated doing it because I know that error will be used against me in a conversation that has nothing to do with the previous one so that one of you can claim the intellectual high road.

People do not like to admit they are wrong in the face of people like you or me for that matter. The discussions are intense and each side is looking for the flaw that will make them look like they are in fact the true intellectual in the discussion. It's common practice, especially by people like you, to imply intellectual superiority by simply finding something, anything to make your opponent look stupid. It's a bait and switch scenario because you've never really shown how intelligent you are.

It's human nature....even if you had two professors going at it with opposing views neither one is going to admit he made an error and give the other something to repeatedly use as intellectual ammo for every argument against him.

[The Operative]

Those securities are held by private banks, the government can't just claim them as assets and not pay them, that would destroy the government credit rating right off the bat and the securities would be worthless.

Title 12 U.S.C. § 290 states "Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied."

As I said, the stock in a Federal Reserve bank confers no right of ownership beyond the par value of the stock.

The government can't just seize the stock, they have to pay for it.

See:
12 USC 287
12 USC 288

Which is EXACTLY what I said. Note what it says in § 290
"and the par value of the stock" The par value of the shares is $100 per share. The paid-in capital amount of the Federal Reserve banks is the total number of issued shares at $100 per share. The total paid-in capital of the Federal Reserve banks was only a little over $15 billion in 2006. The surplus fund of the Federal Reserve banks has that same amount in it. The member banks could be paid for their shares out of the surplus fund alone. All other assets after the debts are paid would revert to the government. Since the U.S. Government securities held by the Federal Reserve are COLLATERAL for the Federal Reserve notes, there are no other liabilities or debts that have any claim to those securities.

§ 290. Use of earnings transferred to Treasury

The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Should a Federal reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied.

I think you really need to think it over, the government is not going to be able to just take its securities back that provide the base for the entire backing system. It will have to pay those securities off. I suppose it could default on its obligation but then that would be economic suicide not to mention probably incite a revolution.

You need to think it through. Congress COULD, if it wanted to, dissolve the Federal Reserve. I never said it would be smart. The only amounts that would have to be paid to the member banks would be an amount equal to the par value of the shares they hold plus any unpaid dividend. According to the audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve district banks, that would only be $15.4 billion plus a portion of the approximately $800 million in dividends. All together, less than $17 billion. All other assets would become the property of the U.S. Government along with the liability of the Federal Reserve Notes. That INCLUDES the $800 billion in U.S. Government securities. The securities would probably be held internally by the government as backing of the Federal Reserve notes, however, the principle amount for those securities would technically never have to be paid because the government would simply issue new securities to replace the maturing ones. As an example, let's assume a $100,000 T-Bond held by the government matures, the government would pay the $100,000 and then use that $100,000 to buy another $100,000 T-Bond. Granted, that is a simplified example, but that is basically how it would work.[/quote]

I agree it could dismantle the federal reserve, it would be very difficult but it could be done and then it could print and mange its own currency, though I would rather have the fed do it. If we were to dismantle the Fed it would have to be to go to a metal standard to prevent the government from being irresponsible with monetary policy.

I would also rather have the Federal Reserve manage the money supply and oversee banking, but you are wrong that member banks have any claim to the U.S. Government securities held by the Federal Reserve banks.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I've been here for several years and not once has anyone admitted to any mistake they have made even when it was obvious

Steve, I can't speak for others, and I obviously have not read every interchange you have had with others here, but as far as interactions between you and me, I would like to point out that you have never identified any mistake of fact or law made by me (i.e., not typographical errors, spelling errors, etc.), and I don't recall having made any such mistakes since I began posting here in Quatloos in May of this year. That's not because I'm that brilliant and knowledgeable (although, of course, I am indeed that brilliant and knowledgeable). Instead, it's because I try to be pretty C-A-R-E-F-U-L about what I write, and what position I take. I look before I leap (usually), and I have a wealth of training and experience in some of the matters we are discussing -- training and experience that you apparently do not have.

If you ever identify a real, substantive factual or legal mistake that I make, I will probably admit it. That's because I have not invested a lot of emotion in these topics in an inappropriate way -- in a way that affects my judgment.

Thus, I have something else that I think you may not have, or at least something that you need to improve: emotional detachment on the specific topics discussed in Quatloos. For example, from a personal, emotional standpoint, I don't care whether the Federal Reserve System is good or bad. I don't care in an emotional sense whether the Federal income tax system is good or bad. Yes, I want all these things to be fair and good. But the fact that all these things (and other things about laws, government, authority, and so on) have bad (or even very, very bad) aspects does not get me emotionally upset, in general. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

I get very emotional and upset because my health insurance premiums are "too high" and (I feel) "unfair." But if I were to get down to brass tacks and try to analyze the health care system, I would not allow my emotion, my feeling, my "belief" about the system to degrade the quality of the analysis I perform. I just don't analyze things that way. That's a strength for me, but it does not make me a better person that you; it means that we approach things differently. I maintain that my approach works better for the kinds of things we are discussing here in Quatloos.

Just for the record, I would also like to add that a difference of opinion is not a mistake. In other words, the fact that you feel very strongly about your position and feel very strongly that the other guy is wrong does not mean the other guy made a mistake.

A mistake is where you say that a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System cannot be removed by the President you and copy and paste the actual statute to support that position, and the statute clearly states, in black and white, that the President can indeed remove members of the Board. THAT is a mistake of law, and it is a fundamental error.

The claim that members of the Board cannot be removed by the President, etc., is an old urban legend. It is false. I have heard it for years. You fell for this old legend, possibly because you read it somewhere on the internet, possibly at some goofy anti-Federal Reserve System web site. You apparently had never bothered to check it out, because you WANTED to believe the claim. The claim "fit" into your preconceived world view about the Fed. You set yourself up for a fall, and I came along. And even when I cited the statute that proved you wrong, you were so emotional, you were in so much of a hurry, that you copied and pasted the very language of the statute I cited to you -- the language that proved you wrong -- and you berated me, even going so far as to highlight a portion of the applicable sentence in the law, without even noticing the rest of the sentence in black and white that showed you were wrong.

Your APPROACH is faulty. It is your approach (and not necessarily your belief system in every case) that has repeatedly resulted in your public humiliation.

The problem is not that you are wrong sometimes, but that you are SO "SURE" YOU ARE RIGHT when YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRONG. The problem is that your emotional approach to these topics degrades your ability to analyze properly.

There is nothing wrong with holding strong beliefs. And there is nothing wrong with emotion, when properly channeled. Slow down, think things through, and be more careful.

[ElfNinosMom]

There are some people who are saying they were ripped off by the Liberty Dollar people, unrelated to the federal raid. It appears that they were charging credit cards weeks prior to shipment, were not shipping when agreed, and in some cases never shipped at all. How convenient that this guy is now claiming he has no records except those seized by the feds, so basically everybody is SOL.

I'm curious, when did he file bankruptcy, and when did he start the Liberty Dollar business? What was his former business, a coin store of some sort?

I'd like some background on this guy, if anybody has any. My internet is running painfully slow right now due to cable problems, though, so anything anybody has would be of great help.

[The Operative]

The government can't just seize the stock, they have to pay for it.

I never said the government could just seize the stock. I have always said that the stock confers no rights of ownership beyond the par value of the stock. Notice in one of my previous posts, I stated that

If a member bank liquidates, they are required to SURRENDER their shares back to the district bank. The district bank pays the liquidated bank back the amount of the subscription plus any unpaid dividend. Beyond that, the member banks do not have any rights to any assets of the district banks or of the Federal Reserve system.

which happens to be what is said in Title 12 U.S.C. § 287.

[webhick]

I've been here for several years and not once has anyone admitted to any mistake they have made even when it was obvious.

I could have sworn that I've misread things and made mistakes and owned up to them here. It's possible that you don't bother with my posts though and subsequently missed it.

That being said, I refuse to admit that I'm wrong about the impeding military invasion of wolverpusses on pixie sticks. We're all doomed, mark my words.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

The discussions are intense and each side is looking for the flaw that will make them look like they are in fact the true intellectual in the discussion. It's common practice, especially by people like you, to imply intellectual superiority by simply finding something, anything to make your opponent look stupid. It's a bait and switch scenario because you've never really shown how intelligent you are.

(bolding added).

Again, I can't speak for others, but I think your statements are revealing. You feel intellectually inferior to many of the other posters here, and you feel emotional about that, and it's a bad, unpleasant feeling.

Many of the people who post here are highly intellectual in their approach to things and are also brilliant. Also, many of these people are highly educated, and have seen other countries, other cultures. Many of these people have endured rigorous formal education, perhaps in multiple fields, and some have advanced degrees and have been formally recognized (e.g., in courts of law or academia or other fora) as being experts in a particular field.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I suspect many of these people have little if any emotional need or desire to prove to you (or to themselves for that matter) that they are intellectually superior to you.

Just look at the real world of tax practice. The real world of tax practice for most lawyers and CPAs simply does not involve tax protesters. For many people with advanced expertise in Federal taxation, blowing tax protesters away is just a hobby, an amusement, a pasttime, an intellectual exercise. This is the easy stuff. If, for example, I am the player, I will always win. I always do. The deck is stacked against the tax protester, in part because I am simply right and the tax protester is wrong, and in part because the intellectual weapons available to me, and the abilities I bring to the game, are so much greater than those of the tax protester. In that limited sense, it's not a "fair" competition.

In the real world, the non-Quatloos world, I do not always win. Or, to be more precise, my client does not always get everything he or she wants. That's because the law is not on his side, or the facts are not on his side, or the economics of fighting the battles are not on his side, etc.

In short, the rest of us probably don't have that much of a psychic need to prove to you how "intelligent" we are. This is just a game. We have already proved ourselves, over and over, long before we ever began posting in Quatloos. We have proved ourselves in real dealings in the real world with real opponents. We have proved ourselves in court. Or we have proved ourselves in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service or some other, lesser behemoth. We have proved ourselves to our professors in slugging through years of formal academic and other training to obtain advanced degrees and professional designations. We have proved ourselves to our clients, who pay us the big bucks for RESULTS. We have proved ourselves to ourselves and we have proved ourselves to other people whose opinions really count.

[Imalawman]

That being said, I refuse to admit that I'm wrong about the impeding military invasion of wolverpusses on pixie sticks. We're all doomed, mark my words.

Well, then there is no reasoning with you. If that's true then how in the hell do you explain chapter 87-457.342(3)(E)(iii)(r) of "The Manual"? See, it simply doesn't make sense that the wolverpusses would even consider using pixie sticks. Man, some people....

[Demosthenes]

The Washington Times

Article published Nov 28, 2007
Ron Paul and the money cops

November 28, 2007

Richard W. Rahn - Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties. It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign. The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

This nonsense only gets worse. The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation. Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

[SteveSy]

[snip]

Wow what a load of crap...all that to highlight over and over a simple oversight in the law. Five words out of probably several thousand in a section of law titled with something that has little to do with removing an appointee. I was wrong...ok, I already admitted it, you got me on one error.

The claim that members of the Board cannot be removed by the President, etc., is an old urban legend. It is false. I have heard it for years. You fell for this old legend, possibly because you read it somewhere on the internet, possibly at some goofy anti-Federal Reserve System web site. You apparently had never bothered to check it out, because you WANTED to believe the claim. The claim "fit" into your preconceived world view about the Fed. You set yourself up for a fall, and I came along. And even when I cited the statute that proved you wrong, you were so emotional, you were in so much of a hurry, that you copied and pasted the very language of the statute I cited to you -- the language that proved you wrong -- and you berated me, even going so far as to highlight a portion of the applicable sentence in the law, without even noticing the rest of the sentence in black and white that showed you were wrong.

I've never read that from any tp site, I don't read them nor form opinions based on them. All of my opinions are formed by my own reading. The only other forum I have ever posted to in the last 5 years, probably 10 posts in total, is the yahoo legality of income tax and that was over a year ago I believe.

I assumed it from reading it from the Dallas fed, something I shouldn't have done, but it wasn't a foundational premise upon which I was arguing on so I didn't feel the need to insure I was correct.

Conducting monetary policy is a tremendous responsibility, for the nation's economic health is at stake. You can see why politicians might want to control the money supply for short-term interests. For that reason, the Fed, by law, is not government controlled or funded by Congress. While it is a centralized banking system comprised of 12 regional banks, it is independent in operation

- http://www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html

So sorry you failed to use one of your character assassination tactics...

Your APPROACH is faulty. It is your approach (and not necessarily your belief system in every case) that has repeatedly resulted in your public humiliation.

You have not repeatedly done anything to me.....this is exactly what I'm talking about, you make an assertion in an attempt to make the other person look stupid so you can give the appearance you are intellectually superior. Truth is you haven't ever shown your intelligence as far as I can tell. You rarely back anything up except to simply say it. You wait to pounce on people like me by finding flaws in long discussions were many statements are made, most insignificant to the overall premise of the argument, yet you will rarely if ever provide detailed supported information to back up any original argument of your own as this would expose you to the same tactic you use on others.

The problem is not that you are wrong sometimes, but that you are SO "SURE" YOU ARE RIGHT when YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRONG. The problem is that your emotional approach to these topics degrades your ability to analyze properly.

I agree I get too involved in some of the conversations. But to claim you don't is laughable, why else would you use derogatory terms? Almost every post you call people you disagree with an idiot even if its an opinion, Dan does the same thing but is far worse.

There is nothing wrong with holding strong beliefs. And there is nothing wrong with emotion, when properly channeled. Slow down, think things through, and be more careful.

Thanks Dad

I suspect you and probably a few others will go on and on beating this dead horse for everything you can muster, it's exactly why I hate admitting a mistake, even an insignificant one. I will though if I see I am wrong unlike any of you.

[The Observer]

People do not like to admit they are wrong in the face of people like you or me for that matter. The discussions are intense and each side is looking for the flaw that will make them look like they are in fact the true intellectual in the discussion. It's common practice, especially by people like you, to imply intellectual superiority by simply finding something, anything to make your opponent look stupid. It's a bait and switch scenario because you've never really shown how intelligent you are.

It's human nature....even if you had two professors going at it with opposing views neither one is going to admit he made an error and give the other something to repeatedly use as intellectual ammo for every argument against him.

Which explains why you took pains to remove a post that showed you so wrong that not even you could deny it - so instead you tried to remove it in the attempt to ensure that future readers would not have another example of you falling flat on your face.

As Famspear correctly points out, and as the quote above of you alludes to, you are only EMOTIONALLY involved in your argument and have no INTELLECTUAL involvement. Thus, you cannot distance yourself from your emotional stake in your contrived positions. This only leads to you to making the asinine statements that you typically make and then even more asinine statements in the vain attempt to minimize the damage you have done to yourself.

You fail to comprehend that you are arguing for a position that was already dead in the water before its arrival. You argue in the face of over one hundred years of jurisprudence, case law and legal history that has already decided the issue; you argue with legal authorities who have years of knowledge, training and experience in these matters; you argue despite the fact that the law has been upheld consistently by the court system. So it cannot be anything else than an emotional issue for you.

As for the rest of us, it is not an emotional issue for us. If the income tax system were suddenly to disappear tomorrow, it would not impact us significantly in any emotional way. We understand that another tax system would be implemented and would deal with it accordingly. We have no significant emotional investment in the tax system and this cannot be comprehended by you. So you create emotional motives for the "tax advocates" that don't exist: we are for the income tax because we directly benefit from it or we have political/social agendas for supporting the income tax or we just like sticking to the "little guys" like you.

All of your behavior above is merely intellectual dishonesty. You really need to take a time-out and take a long, look at yourself and the positions you hold. That is, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

[Quixote]

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

Mr. Rahn is apparently not one to let facts get in the way of a good scandal.

The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

Convict first, investigate later? That's a strange position for an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute to take.